Subscribe For Updates

News

Who Speaks for Oath Keepers?

Wearing one of these does not authorize us to represent our personal positions as reflective of the entire Oath Keepers organization.

The media, as we see almost daily, has no idea how to report on Oath Keepers. That’s due to a number of considerations, including lack of depth/ignorance on the part of reporters, personal “progressive” biases reflective of the overwhelming majority of journalists, and flat-out laziness. So using “sources” like the Southern Poverty Law Center, and parroting what they say as “authoritative” is an easy way to add descriptors to a story and not worry about how accurate the information is. It’s not like their readers or viewers, aside from a handful (if at all), are going to know the difference, and it’s not like correcting the record is a priority.

That’s one of the reasons I urge members to keep on top of what the media says about Oath Keepers, since if the truth is going to get out, it’s going to be pretty much up to us to make that happen. But in doing so, we also need to be careful to make it clear when we are speaking for ourselves and not for the entire organization. The recent flap where news sources were reporting on a man saying he was going to start arresting politicians, and making q special effort to identify him as an Oath Keeper, illustrates that.

Jason Van Tatenhove talked about the dangers of initiating such actions in a post yesterday about his latest “The Liberty Brothers Show” episode. That’s an appropriate conversation to have, but the point I’m trying to make here is, there is an authorized way of representing this organization in the media, and it merits being understood and respected by all members.

During my corporate career of years past, I was tasked with producing policies and procedures on all aspects of business operations in highly regulated industries. Those organizations all had a media policy, that is, a policy that defined who was authorized to speak to the media on behalf of the organization. If you think about it, it’s only fair, unless you believe it’s OK for someone else to presume he can speak for you.

When Stewart Rhodes asked me to start writing for Oath Keepers, he told me I could write about anything I wanted that I believed was related to the interests, advancement and mission of the organization. That said, this is not my website, and if I post something editor Elias Alias or board members believe is contrary to those goals, it’s right and proper that they should remove it, and if appropriate, remove me.

If I have occasion to speak to the media, as I do on a regular basis with talk radio and other venues, I do so as an individual, not as an Oath Keepers spokesman. To present myself in any other way would be inappropriate unless the board specifically asked me to field a statement, and unless that statement adhered to deliberated and approved positions.

There’s no shortage of people who would love to discredit Oath Keepers, because the group presents obstacles to their agenda of accumulating power at the expense of rights. We need to keep that in mind when interacting with the media and the public, and in how we conduct ourselves, especially while attending Oath Keepers functions or wearing articles of clothing with the Oath Keepers insignia. And we need to be careful to make it clear when we’re speaking on behalf of the organization, such as while participating in directed operations and outreach efforts, and when we’re speaking solely for ourselves.

It’s just this simple: You don’t commit someone else to your priorities without their OK.

David Codrea blogs at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance (WarOnGuns.com), and is a field editor/columnist for GUNS Magazine. Named “Journalist of the Year” in 2011 by the Second Amendment Foundation for his groundbreaking work on the “Fast and Furious” ATF “gunwalking” scandal, he is a frequent event speaker and guest on national radio and television programs.

35 comments

As a professional, working as a corporate officer, there is a responsibility to protect the organization from negative public press. Thus, we have employee agreements, policy, contracts, etc., whereby we simply may discharge a person who knowingly with conscious willfulness misrepresents in a negative way the corporation. However; a person can be an oath keeper without belonging to an organization named Oath Keepers. Similarly, as with the NRA, people represent the NRA without the approval of NRA sanction. It’s a risk we take, but also a risk as in this article that needs addressing. All the policy and rules that can be conceived do not prevent intentional, or unintentional occasional lack of adherence.

Example Acceptable Risk: Someone wearing an Oath Keepers insignia/banner robs a bank. The MSM will have a party with that. The same person could have worn a DEA hat, or a Habit. So as said, keep membership informed, keep the media informed, keep the general public informed. Truth shall win, be it hast to be spread amongst us all.

The only thing I can think of to avoid personal opinion to conflict with Oath Keepers is to strictly limit the OK organization to one goal; disseminating the “Ten Orders We Will Not Obey” to as many applicable folks as possible and encourage them to adhere to those precepts. That is a laudable goal that will can consume one’s efforts. Locally, when I have the opportunity to converse with local cops, few of them have heard of Oath Keepers.

My belief remains that OK needs to set up a separate organization(s) isolated from OK to perform functions beyond the strictly limited realm of the Ten Orders. Keep OK pure and unsullied. It has been when OK stepped outside the Ten Orders realm that internal dissent from OK supporters emerged.

I disagree completely. Us veterans cannot keep our oaths if all we do is disseminate the “Ten Orders” declaration to the current serving and urge them to adhere to them. What about our duty to defend the Constitution? It is not fulfilled by merely urging others to do their duty.

And that was never my intent as the Founder of this org, or the intent of the national BOD. And that is why our bylaws, from the beginning, defined our mission as “defending the Constitution” instead of “disseminating the “Ten Orders We Will Not Obey” to as many applicable folks as possible and encourage them to adhere to those precepts.” The active duty defend the Constitution first and foremost by refusing unlawful orders, but even there, in the extreme, they have an affirmative duty as well, to take action to stop it being violated by others. Witness Warrant Officer Thompson when he put a stop to the My Lai Massacre. He didn’t just refuse to take part, and stand idly by. He ordered his door gunners to fire on any of the infantry troops who continued to shoot women and children, while he personally escorted surviving women and children to the choppers.

We hope that the current serving can put a stop to abuse of the rights of the people by simply refusing to comply, but it may take direct action on their part to put a stop to abuse.

Similarly, while we would love to see a mass stand down thwart the plans of evil oath breakers in control of our government, we veterans must recognize and realize that such a stand down is not all it will take to save this Republic, or what is left of liberty in America. We have affirmative actions that we must take, as veterans.

Number one, we must step up to provide the security, mutual aid, disaster relief, etc that is the duty of the people themselves, as the militia. And we must work to restore that vital institution, that the founders rightly decreed to be necessary for the security of a free state (and a free people). The Ten Orders won’t get that done. The current serving military or police will not get that done. It is up to us veterans to lead the way, showing by our example, so that the American people as a whole can get that done.

And that is the point of our CPT program. To lead by example, rebuilding community and civic virtue from the bottom up, with the ultimate goal of revitalizing and reestablishing the honest to God militia of the several states, which would consist of ALL able bodied citizens in a state, well organized, well trained, and well lead, under the ultimate command of the governor of the state when not called into national service (by constitutional means, for the few constitutional ends).

And that won’t be done if we just sit on our hands and merely urge the current serving to not violate our “Ten Orders.” And you are not keeping your oath if that is all you do.

I don’t know where else to ask this Stewart, so I’ll ask it here. Are the state militas coordinating with each other or not? Why I ask is I just heard some disturbing news last night that obama is getting ready to go live with his gun confiscation including bringing in UN troops and cuban soldiers based on an excutive order he signed 4 days ago. This guy has been embedded with at least 5 administrations and knows whats going on. All I can say, is I hope someone has a plan, because we are in trouble! Please answer, Thanks,

Responsible members of Oath Keepers should keep themselves informed of the 10 orders — and the by-laws of this group. An educated member can speak out as individual create a positive image of the group — but he, or she, must stay within the parameters outlined, not go off ranting on tangents not established as our mission.

Basically you guys are telling me what my wife tells me. Let me do the talking and if shit gets real I’ll get you. Haha
I joke often, however this is a solid read on the how’s and why to what needs to be done. I see accountability, honesty, integrity and this organization sets boundaries well to its members.
Let us not forget those principles that guide us in the right direction. Thank you.

David, your common sense writings in this article are spot on and I agree totally with your premise.

With that said, I have been at this subject with whom ever will listen to me for some time now. If I can suggest it, the Oath Keepers has grown to such a large size and has definitely gained the national main stream and alternative media attention to the degree that what is now needed is a trustee designated spokesman billet. With a directive by the national BoD to the state chapters to do the same. This important, protected and directed position within our national and state organizations would be the only authorized spokesmen for our organization. These people would be officially sanctioned by the BoD and their discourse with the public outlets that report on our activities would be closely directed and monitored by the leadership of Oath Keepers.

The Army and other military services from the Pentagon down to the Division level have their Public Affairs Officers and every first responded organization has their PAO so why not Oath Keepers?

Excellent recommendations from both David and Russell (above). There is nothing wrong with individuals saying, “Well, I can’t really comment in detail about that, so let me refer you to __________ and what our website may say about that..” Rings a lot better than “No comment” or running — and writing — one’s mouth off into a media trap (“Gotcha!”).

Well said DM. Keep it short and sweet, and refer them to the national statement or to the national leadership (unless you have established state leadership and it is a state level issue or operation. In that case, refer them to the state leader and/or state PIO, if one is designated).

And if you express your personal opinion, keep it short and sweet and make it clear you are speaking on behalf of yourself only, and not the org. But be aware that anything you say WILL be used against you, and also this org, so keep it short and sweet. the more you go on, the more likely they will catch you in one of those “gotcha!” moments and that will be the quote that will go all over. I know, because it has happened to me.

Actually, we already have such a designated spokesman system. At the national level, as the Founder and National President, I am the official spokesman for Oath Keepers. I handle all national media interview requests from print, TV, radio, etc. Whenever any reporter contacts us through our contact system on this site, it goes to an inbox that I, my national VP Steve Homan, and our national Media Director, Jason Van Tatenhove all monitor. Jason makes sure interview requests are handled, and Steve Homan as my VP, is there to answer any questions if I am unavailable for any reason. Jason is essentially our “PIO” in that he handles national media contacts and inquiries, but I handle the actual interviews and Jason and I work together to put out official statements. Sometimes I will dictate to him what I want posted or sent out, if I can’t write something myself. . For example, when John Ritzheimer announced his foolish “plan” to arrest members of Congress, I instructed Jason to make it clear to the media that Ritzheimer does not speak for us, that we don’t support or agree with his stated plan, and that we are removing him from membership (which we have done). And Jason put that out immediately, and thereafter most of the media noted that we did not support Ritzheimer’s scheme and we are not involved in it (in general, we don’t criticize even bad ideas from others, but when he used our name, we had no choice but to let it be known that we did not support it and that we were kicking him out, because he was putting our active duty military members at risk if we did not do so immediately, since their commands would almost certainly view his stated plan as an attempt to overthrow the U.S. government, and that could have some very real, very immediate and serious consequences for our active duty members).

The other members of the national BOD can also speak for this org, and I trust them all completely to do so, but in general they refer national media inquiries to me, unless it is something that involves their particular area of the country, their state (some of them are also State Chapter leaders), or something they are personally involves with that overlaps with Oath Keepers (such as Sheriff Mack, who is an Oath Keepers BOD member but also runs CSPOA. He does media interviews all the time as the President of CSPOA and while at it gives his opinion as an Oath Keepers BOD member). They usually make it clear that, yes, they are a BOD member, but they are speaking as a state level officer or as an individual, but clearly what they say still reflects on the national org because they serve on the BOD. If there is ever a conflict with what they say as an individual and our official stance on any issue, we deal with it, but it rarely happens. The BOD members are all pretty savvy on how to handle media.

At the state level, we have either official State Chapter Presidents (who have been elected into position by the national BOD), or Acting State Chapter Presidents (where there is a sudden vacancy, a VP becomes “acting” SCP until the national BOD votes a new SCP in) or designated Points of Contact. . All such people are selected by national leadership and are entrusted to act as state level spokesmen for this org. We instruct them that they are authorized to handle all local and state level media at their discretion but national media inquiries (by ‘big” media with national reach) should be directed to national (or at least give me a heads up and the option of handling those, but often I will tell a state chapter leader to go ahead and do the interview). We MUST trust our state chapter leaders and state points of contact to handle media in their own state, and I think it would be absurd to tell them that they can’t do interviews with their local paper, but must instead refer all media to some designated PIO.

And the same goes for leaders in state regions, counties, and towns. They must be able to handle their local media themselves. They certainly can use a designated PIO (that they designate) within their local chapter, if they want, but they don’t have to. As an example, during the Sugar Pine Mine operation, Joseph Rice, as the Josephine County Oath Keepers leader, did a ton of interviews with all kinds of media – local, state, and even national – with my full blessings. He did designate a PIO, and often had her do the interviews, but he also did them. They worked as a team, and that worked well. The same thing happened again during the Big Sky operation in Lincoln, MT. We had PIOs, but the designated operation leaders (SGM Santoro and Rick Delapp) were also authorized to do interviews as well. They worked as a team.

And when we did a national call up for all Oath Keepers to go out and stand guard over their local military recruiting centers, we did not try to tell our members that they couldn’t do interviews or that they had to refer all media to some designated PIO. We trusted them to represent us well in that limited capacity of standing guard, and they did an excellent job. As a consequence, we got tons of positive press, with many very articulate and moving interviews and statements by our rank and file members during that official national op. Certainly, many of them did refer media to their local town, county, or state leader, if present, but many of them just spoke from the heart and did us proud. Again, during an operation like that, we have to give them the discretion and trust to handle the media at the local level, and that trust proved to be well deserved.

Now, as David said, when members are approached by the media, they do need to be very, very careful and aware of the spin the media will try to put on anything we do, and just keep it short, sweet, and to the point. They can use our official statements on the national site as a source for taking points, and stick to those. That would probably be a good idea.

For example, when asked why they are guarding recruiters, a member can (and did) just say we are here to protect the protectors since they are not allowed to protect themselves, because of an absurd DOD policy that insists that they be unarmed even after terrorist attacks on unarmed military personnel. That simply tracks what we said here on the national post calling for our members to guard recruiters. If that member is then asked to comment on what he thinks of Obama, it would be best to simply say, again, we think he is an oath breaker, and in this instance, is intentionally leaving our current serving unarmed, and as the so-called Commander in Chief, he is failing to take care of his troops, which is second only to the oath to defend the Constitution when it comes to the duty of a commander. That would also track our official statement. If asked whether he subscribes to “birther” theories that Obama is not qualified to serve as President, that member is best off saying “I’m not here to comment on that, I am here to stand for those who stand for us ….” and just stick to the general talking points and mission. And remember, the longer the interview, the more likely they are to lead you off on some tangent, and then cherry pick one thing you say that may have been not so well put. I speak from personal experience on that!

And when it comes to what our official position is on any topic, unless you read it here on this site, in a public statement by me, on behalf of this org, then it is NOT the official position of this org. And that is also something you can point out to the media, and you can refer them to this site or to a particular statement.

And if it is national media it may be a good idea to refer them to this site and tell them to use our contact form to get a statement or interview from the national leadership. Make a short statement that tracks with our official position and then refer them to national for anything else.

Oath keepers are about honor and duty. What does a college graduate working in the Main Stream Media in New York, Massachusetts, D.C. area know about honor and duty.

The lazy and weak minded go to college and take what their “marxist” leaning professors course study says as gospel, and is probably the only “Gospel” they know. They have not faith, no God. To whom or what will they swear too? A Tree, a Rock or ISIS?

The “Progressives” (who believe that the only reason communism failed in Eastern Europe is because they weren’t in charge) and their offspring, are the future defenders of our country. Somehow I don’t think that is going to have a pleasant outcome. We are doomed unless the future battles will be won over who has the best wardrobe hairstyle and smallest carbon footprint.

The answer is to hold the media accountable. When they ask stupid leading questions, simply say That is a stupid question and I will not lower myself to answer, NEXT!

I personally consider my branded gear as the Uniform of my Extended Service to God, Family, Country, and Organization – all those things I hold dear, and would no sooner bring disrespect to any of them wearing our name than I could fly. That said, I remind all reading this that appropriate conduct and speech at all times are tantamount to maintaining the highest standards of respect required to boldly lead America in the right direction – both in and out of ‘uniform’.

Well said David,
We all have agendas, whether they be for personal advancement and wealth, like the Elite and politicians. or the agenda of wanting to secure peace and freedom from the criminal element running the planet. It is still an agenda.
We all know ISLAM cannot exist in America because the tenets of each are mutually exclusive. Yet our government is trying to force down our throats the agenda of the Elite who at this point in time is divide and conquer. Whether it be false racism promoted by actual racists, or The ADL attacking to cover up actual facts… Or the Black Lives Matters crew and the New Black Panthers pushing their twisted truth…. PC is a way of saying the opposite of truth is better…

“Yet our government is trying to force down our throats the agenda of the Elite…”

No, our government under the US Constitution is the same as it has always been, it is those THAT SERVE WITHIN our government that is shoveling that “stuff” down our throats.

Language matters and when we refer to those that SERVE WITH our government as being our government they win some points as that, and that we are a democracy, are toe main points that they are hammering everyone with at ALL times.

That solidifies that message into the minds of the “dumbed down”, propagandized, “subliminally short circuited people” that those that SERVE WITHIN actually do have the authority themselves instead of DELEGATED authority to the branch and position they occupy temporarily.

I believe the public’s confusion about the mission of Oath Keepers is justified. While adhering to the “10 orders we will not obey” is a very powerful and courageous thing, it really only applies to active duty military and law enforcement. The public sees Oath Keepers in a far different role because they see armed civilians looking very much like the militia they accuse us of being. We will be judged by our actions, not our passive resistance to unlawful orders.

Defense of the Constitution “against all enemies, foreign and domestic” is not a passive role. It is also a very nebulous role and begs the question “Who are the enemies of the Constitution? Are Muslims enemies of the Constitution? Is the Democratic Party an enemy of the Constitution? What about the whole LGBT movement? or Atheists?

So let us imagine that we would all agree that even one of these groups are bonafide enemies of our Constitution. What does our Oath require us to do? What constitutes “defense”? It has been said that the best defense is a good offense.

I would caution that the Oath is a very personal thing and no one can tell you how best to honor it. You must make that decision for yourself and be prepared to take the consequences. And you better know well the Constitution you are defending!

Yes, when it comes to the duty of us who are no longer under orders, what it means to defend the Constitution is a bit more nebulous, but I think a major part of our duty is clear when we consider that we are supposed to have a REAL militia made up of all the able bodied citizens in our community, well organized, well trained, and under the authority and ultimate command of elected executive leadership (our state governor, and the President of the United States when and if called into service for one of the three constitutional national purposes for which the militia of the several states can be called forth – repel invasion, suppress insurrections, and execute the laws of the Union – with the clear inference that the militia must refuse to enforce or participate in anything that is not actually constitutional).

Revitalizing the militia system, from the ground up, is a very clear duty we can sink our teeth into, and it is a HUGE goal, and will keep us veterans extremely busy. And that is the whole point of our CPT program within this org.

I think that is a no-brainer. Take up the personal duty to train and prepare, and then help your family, friends, neighbors, town, county and state train and prepare.

I also think we have an affirmative duty to step in an protect our neighbors and fellow Americans from violence, such as our defense against arsonists in Ferguson, MO, and our guarding of the recruiters after the recent terrorist attack on them. And we have a duty to prevent another Waco slaughter of innocents. I think we can all find common ground on that duty, and that is why we went to Bundy Ranch, Sugar Pine Mine, and Lincoln, MT. We were worried about a repeat of the horror of Waco.

Beyond that, it certainly does get more nebulous, and as you said, it comes down to an individual decision of what we think our oath demands.

I do think we should pay close attention to the strategy and hard-learned lessons of the Founders when it comes to that. I am writing up something on their strategy that I will post on this site shortly. In a nutshell, they were very, very careful to maintain the moral high ground and to let General Gage be the aggressor, and they left him no choice but to come after them, where they were strong and he was weak, which resulted in Gage being perceived as being the clear aggressor on April 19 – thus losing the moral high ground – while also getting his ass handed to him in a string of defeats leading to him being forced to evacuate the British Army and Navy from Boston. THAT is how you do it right. I will go into more detail on that in the write up I am doing.

But on the way toward our modern version of a “Lexington Green” or “Concord Bridge” we can also recognize some clear trip wires that will very likely result in open conflict. A Waco type killing of innocents is one. A declaration of “martial law” (which is nowhere in our Constitution) would be another. The use of military force, military detention, or military trial against “patriot” dissidents would also be clear trip wires. In other words, whether any of you agree on when it is appropriate to use force in defense of the Constitution, we can see that there are certain egregious actions that oath breakers within government could take that likely would kick off an armed revolt. We can see the clear, bright line trip wires all the more clearly now, after Bundy Ranch, where it was very, very clear that a fire-fight there would certainly have kicked it off.

As in the Founders day, we cannot, and likely will not, be able to guess at the exact instance that will constitute our version of Lexington Green, but we can make some pretty clear guesses. And that is exactly what we did with our Declaration of Ten Orders. It was our best estimation, at the time, of the clear trip wires that may spark a second American Revolution, and also our way of educating the current serving and the American people on our Bill of Rights (which the declaration closely tracks) and what has been already been done to violate it in many ways.

When it comes right down to it, all we can do is get ready for the very likely conflict we can see coming, while we do our best to avoid it, as we do our duty to rebuild the critical institutions (such as the militia) that the Founders considered necessary in a Republic. And all the while, teaching our fellow Americans about our Constitution and how they fit into it, with a special focus on the current serving and on our fellow veterans, since they are both such critical groups within the American people.

Man this is all good stuff and is certainly needed. Being a founding member of OK I have been to plenty of events and have worked many a gun shows to promote OK and grow our membership. There are many Oath Keepers that are members that either do not read OK policy or are just too lazy to do so. As an example, earlier this year I was at the Bundy reunion and ran into some Oath Keepers from another state. We were talking as we sat in the campground and a reporter from some paper out of Grand Junction stopped by to ask for an interview, as we were wearing OK gear and the OK flag was on display. These guys jumped right in, started bashing the president and just about every other politician. After the tirade was over and the reporter was walking away I went with her to defuse the remarks that were made and explained that these guys where new to OK and weren’t up to speed on OK policy and assured her that we were not anti-government among other things. So I am in total agreement that it is time to have addition to the Nat’l board for the position of “POI” public information officer, and have one in each chapter as Russ above has stated. It’s time has come.

First wanting to remove and replace those Domestic Enemies and Traitors that serve within our government is very different from being “anti-government”. Those people that SERVE WITHIN our government are NOT THE GOVERNMENT. It is a job for them be it that they are elected, hired, contracted, etc and they are under a contract, the US Constitution, which is strengthened lawfully by the Oath (felony to not keep it plus the crime of Perjury). The US Constitution is a list of the delegated powers to. With the listing of those duties it also forbids anything not listed and the Tenth Amendment makes clear that all of the peoples authority were NOT delegated to the states or to the general government but retained by the people (nor was all the state authority delegated over to the general government, just that dealing with mostly foreign affairs). The states all retained their authority except for that specifically delegated to the general government.

More importantly is to realize that the authority (power) was delegated to the different branches and some specific positions within the branches NOT TO ANY PERSON. The person who serves within a branch and/or within a specific position within a branch is
ALLOWED temporarily to use that authority that comes with the position or branch within the government that they serve within.

The US Constitution REQUIRES us, “We the People”, to remove those who serve within our governments that work against or weaken it, and gave us constitutional ways to do so.

Abraham Lincoln: “We, the people, are the rightful masters of both congress and the courts – not to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.”

I would not represent the Oathkeepers in what I say in public places except to defend them. So in that respect they were wrong in what they said if the presented it as Oathkeepers policy and not their own.

But I would have not problem pointing out, and do so regularly, that Obama gave himself First Degree murder powers (assassination) and that is NOT delegated to any branch or position within the American government.

Or that he unlawfully and illegally along with Panetta and Dempsey gave the US Military to the UN and NATO for their use which is also NOT a delegated authority and is Treason on the part of those three.

Or that he has given authority to a foreign entity over the USA which is also NOT A DELEGATED authority that he has the lawful authority to do and is also Treason against all Americans and the US Constitution.

Or that …

(I have a very long list collected over the years to before he started impersonating being a US President, so I will stop here.)

Please understand that Obama is not the only Treasonous “president” put into office and I list their crimes also.

Abraham Lincoln: “We, the people, are the rightful masters of both congress and the courts – not to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.”

The actual quote, in context, says something very different.

“The people of these United States are the rightful masters of both Congresses and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution. To do these things we must employ instrumentalities. We must hold conventions; we must adopt platforms, if we conform to ordinary custom; we must nominate candidates; and we must carry elections.”

“The people of these United States are the rightful masters of both congresses and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.

In another paragraph is this;

To do these things we must employ instrumentalities. We must hold conventions; we must adopt platforms, if we conform to ordinary custom; we must nominate candidates; and we must carry elections. In all these things, I think that we ought to keep in view our real purpose, and in none do anything that stands adverse to our purpose. If we shall adopt a platform that fails to recognize or express our purpose, or elect a man that declares himself inimical to our purpose, we not only take nothing by our success, but we tacitly admit that we act upon no other principle than a desire to have “the loaves and fishes,” by which, in the end, our apparent success is really an injury to us.” (End quote)

If you have found this written differently will you please link the source.

Cal said: “But I would have not problem pointing out, and do so regularly, that Obama gave himself First Degree murder powers (assassination) and that is NOT delegated to any branch or position within the American government.”

I have pointed that out myself, on may occasions. And that claimed power, in particular, claimed by Bush and then Obama, is why I founded this org. I realized back in 2004 that we have “crossed the Rubicon” into our own version of Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. – Stewart

Some very interesting and valid comments from everyone that responded. I would say for everyone to read all of the comments here and you will find that all areas of interest were well addressed. I would add that WE, Oath Keepers, must operate and communicate as an extremely well versed, well mannered, well outfitted and managed group of Ladies and Gentlemen collectively bonded and focused on our main objective….To do everything in our power to save and preserve this Sovereign Free Enterprise Constitutional Republic from ANY adversary, be it foreign or domestic. OK along with countless veterans, past & present and countless other patriotic groups and individuals that share the same objective will be the difference between success and failure when it hits the fan….this is a fact and it will indeed eventually happen. We must collectively remain focused…..our future depends on it. God Bless America.

As I see it, Oath Keepers would realistically be on the side of this elected official and her duty to represent those who voted for her. We may not agree with her point of view, but her constituents obviously do. In taking a stand to obey our oaths we have sworn to obey the officials appointed (in this case by the people she represents) over us. I have no problem, as a citizen, not as an Oath Keeper, in calling for her impeachment by constitutional means. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t stand up, as an Oath Keeper, to physically defend her against this nut job and his “militia”, if asked to do so. I haven’t been asked so the point is moot.

I am sure that there are many here who would disagree with me. Please, if you see it differently let me know where I’ve got it wrong.

When an officer violates your rights,inform him that you are aware of the law requiring him to execute a oath of office to insure you from damages regarding any violation. The fines start at $250,000.for violating the oath & there are usually several areas of violations totalling $750,000. Go to the city or county clerks office (where applicable) & request under the FOIA , a copy of the oath of office & the bonding company. Complete an affidavit form stating the incident date & any verbal notices or statements communicated between you and the officer,especially that you gave notice that you maintain All of your constitutional rights. State your claim in the amount of damages in your affidavit & send it REGISTERED MAIL, not certified mail. In order to do this you will need to insure it & it has to be filed ,unfolded in a 8 1/2″ white envelope.I usually use a an amount equal to one hour of my time @ $450./ hr., as that is the the average hourly rate it would cost to attempt to defend against an unrebuted affidavit.In the affidavit state that you are the affiant & the officer is the respondent. Number each of the violations & any statements made by the officer.Lastly, state that if any thing stated in this affidavit is believed to be untrue respond within 30 days from the.date it was received by notarised affidavit C/O the notary’s address below or a judgement by default will be obtained. Nobody ever respond to lawfully negate the judgement. When no respond has arrived at the notary’s office within the prescribed time, have the notary sign a pre printed notice of non response. Have the notary notarise 3-4 copies so that there is an original notary stamp or signature on each.All communication by USPS needs to be REGISTERED MAIL & insured.The unrebuted affidavit should be sent along with an affidavit to the bonding insurance company or the city/county if applicable stating there requirement to compensate violations. And again give them 30 days to settle the account or respond by notarised affidavit to C/O the notary’s address below or a judgement by default will be obtained. An unrebuted affidavit can be recorded in the county applicable or with a UCC-1 at the SECRETARY OF STATE’s office after you have invoiced the applicable party’s 30 , 60 , 90 day intervals REGISTERED MAIL!

I have been an Oath Keeper since May, in that time no one has contacted me or said boo, as far as I know there are no other Oath Keepers in my area. I was contacted early on by a group not in my area but
I quickly found that their ideology and mine were vastly different. The biggest problem I see is there is no organization of anything, there’s just a whole bunch of us running around with no leadership.

Greetings and Salutations brothers and Keepers of the Oath.
I write this missive with great but heavy heart, as that there is one entity that one could file federal litigation against. The southern poverty law center needs to be taken into a federal court under the federal criminal statues of Title 18 USC 241, 242, and 248.
I have been a Constitutional solicitor since 1976. And since their founding these persons have been at the forefront of violations of the constitutional rights of the citizens.

There is no better time than the present for constitutional lawyers along with petitioners to act as one patriot, one voice, to stand in a court of law to have constitutional rights recognized and destroy the lawless infringements destroyed by legislation, agency rule, and the pen.

Great comments that all should read. I agree that if you are not in a position to speak for National, then don’t. No different then when I was a recruiter and an aircraft went down nearby. I got calls for days, until 9/11 hit. Then I got calls on why the Air Force sent us home. My standard answer was call PA, here’s the number. We are the rank and file, focus on our preparedness.